Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[MSTCNC]

Yesterday, voters in NC approved Amendment One. In they process, they not only banned same-sex marriages; but, civil and domestic unions as well. Most are, even still, unaware what the full proposal was... as all they heard was, "Gay people.... blah blah blah... marriage... blah blah... gay people!"

Sadly, it's undeniable that those counties that voted AGAINST... are those counties with excellent education... and those who voted FOR... where more rural, less-educated counties...

Have we learned nothing in all of the time humanity has been kicking around this dusty blue marble? How much longer must we wait until, as Rev. King said, we judge a person by the character of their heart, and not the color of their skin (sexual preference, etc).

Looking at the returns, I take solace in the fact that the residents of Orange and Durham lead the vote against this anti-famil legislation. VERY happy with my neighbors... just not so much with the rest of the State...

On a high point... now that the Gay's are under control... we can start talking about electricity and indoor plumbing!

Strike one against me staying past graduation in 2013... sorry, NC... but, I'm ashamed of you!!!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It'll bite them in the ***, and they'll cry foul, but the only ones to blame for choosing to stay ignorant are themselves.

 

[granfire]

well, a very smart lady I get to talk to now and then would not call them ignorant, but stupid.
Because ignorance can be fixed with learning and acquiring information. Those who avoid gaining knowledge are henceforce stupid. And we all know you can't fix that!

Only bad is that the stupid are also increasingly loud and tend to bully.
So we do tend to see more stupid laws being passed and voted on.


yippee, we are living in Interesting Times...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When all those 'good god a fearin folk' start losing their own health care and other benefits as a result, watch them whine.

The ACLU of North Carolina released a list explaining how bad things could get for unmarried North Carolina couples if Amendment 1 passes. Here are some rights that could be at risk:

• Domestic violence laws protecting people in an unmarried partnerships might be weakened. (This claim has been debated by both sides, and it's still unclear exactly how the law would impact domestic violence victims. Opponents of Amendment 1 say many of North Carolina's domestic violence laws offer special protections to victims who have an established relationship with their abusers. So if the amendment narrows the law to legally recognize only marriages, it might weaken these protective laws for unmarried partners. Supporters of Amendment 1, such as Rockingham County District Attorney Phil Berger Jr., contest this claim. Berger said nothing in the amendment changes any laws on assault, rape, murder, or other crimes.)
• Unmarried parents could no longer have the same child custody and visitation rights as married parents.
• Private agreements between unmarried couples might not longer have a legal basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has cohabited and raised children together for years decides to separate, the wealthier partner would not be legally obligated to divide property with his or her partner.
• The law could interfere with unmarried partners' end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney.
• Employers would no longer have to provide benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of unmarried employees.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/amendment-1-north-carolina-gay-people

You are so smart NC. Way to screw your selves.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As the New York Times reports:

Just 36 percent of voters answered correctly that it bans both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. An additional 26 percent thought it banned same-sex marriage alone. Meanwhile, 10 percent of voters thought a "yes" vote on the amendment would legalize rather than ban same-sex marriage, and 27 percent weren't sure what it did.
​

This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.

 

[MSTCNC]

This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.

<points to nose>

 

[ballen0351]

This is why there should be a test about what a law means before you're allowed to vote on them. If you don't get it right, you can't vote.

Thats nothing new during the 2008 presidential election radio stations were interviewing obama voters and over half either couldnt name his VP or thought it was Palin when asked. People dont care they go in and hit the button so they can say they voted. Ive voted for laws before that i had no idea what they were about normally local laws that didnt apply to my county but needed a change in state law to be allowed in that specific county or city.
As for the NC ban well its their state and their choice if you dont like it dont move to NC. Ive always said you shouldnt need the GOVT permission to get married but when you allow them to get involved you stuck with it.

 

[oftheherd1]

As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles. I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman. That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.

I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle. I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians. I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that. I take them for the kind of person and personality they are. If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have. I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.

Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally. I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle. Physical attacks are illegal. It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.

Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Ive always said you shouldnt need the GOVT permission to get married but when you allow them to get involved you stuck with it.

That in itself is worthy of a debate (but in another thread). Many religion's leaders also don't think that a State should be able to give permission (license) to be a preacher. They think that should be between the preacher and God, and the church who would ordain. There are of course plenty of arguments on both sides of that issue.

Just a thought.

 

[MSTCNC]

As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles. I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman. That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.

I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle. I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians. I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that. I take them for the kind of person and personality they are. If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have. I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.

Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally. I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle. Physical attacks are illegal. It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.

Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.

Having a personal opinion on something, and even having a presonal religouse viewpoint, is all fine and good...

It's imposing that viewpoint on others that I take exception to. Not to mention un-educated voters casting their .02 on a ballot that are uniformed about...

Personally, although I was brought up Christian... I no longer follow that line of thinking... as I found too many discrepancies between the written word, and the actions of church in general. And, as the son of a Minister... I feel qualified to say that...

And,honestly, I don't feel that religeon should come into play here in any way, shape, or form. There are many other religeons that are practiced in this Country... and, to assume that those practitioners will all be OK with a Christian stance... is conceited at best...

Not pointing fingers, or passing judgement here... just sayin'...

Inn the big picture, I just can't believe, with a straight face, that an all-knowing creator would really give a rat's *** where you stick your private parts...

 

[ballen0351]

So people should not vote how they believe or feel? You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?

Having a personal opinion on

something, and even having a presonal religouse viewpoint, is all fine and good...

It's imposing that viewpoint on others that I take exception to. Not to mention un-educated voters casting their .02 on a ballot that are uniformed about...

Personally, although I was brought up Christian... I no longer follow that line of thinking... as I found too many discrepancies between the written word, and the actions of church in general. And, as the son of a Minister... I feel qualified to say that...

And,honestly, I don't feel that religeon should come into play here in any way, shape, or form. There are many other religeons that are practiced in this Country... and, to assume that those practitioners will all be OK with a Christian stance... is conceited at best...

Not pointing fingers, or passing judgement here... just sayin'...

Inn the big picture, I just can't believe, with a straight face, that an all-knowing creator would really give a rat's *** where you stick your private parts...

 

[granfire]

As I have mentioned before, I do not agree with gay or lesbian lifestyles. I therefore firmly agree that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry, and that marraige should be between a man and a woman. That was my upbringing and what I find in the bible.

I do not dislike gays and lesbians themselves, simply their lifestyle. I do and have known people who are gay and lesbians. I don't reject them for that, nor seek them out for that. I take them for the kind of person and personality they are. If they don't bring up their lifestyle, neither do I, and I think only maybe a couple have. I can only guess that since I didn't treat them any different, they didn't see a need to.

Any who would ask my opinion, I would tell them, but not in an argumentatve way or confrontationally. I would also try and defend a gay or lesbian who was physically attacted for their lifestyle. Physical attacks are illegal. It makes no difference why you dislike someone, if you allow that dislike to goad you into a physical attack, you violate the law.

Just wanted to see a different opinion on the subject in the thread.

You are free to not marry a person of the same gender.

however, in a nation that believes in a separation of church and state the bible should have no bearing on the laws.

Aside from the sex part, there are money matters involved.
And really, contrary to popular believe, marriage is an economic arrangement.
In the past it was restricted to man and woman because of the biological necessity to produce children (oh, and government had always had it's hand in that pie: from the olden days when permission had to be granted by the lord of the land, to minimal monetary requirements for the happy couple. In essence, no money - or job - no maritial bliss)
marriage is a worldy thing, as martin Luther had put it (and some say that only as answer to the reformation marriage was made into a sacrament by the Catholic church)

Also, a physical attack, that is about the last step. However the dislike of the 'lifestyle' is causing the subtle attacks on those individuals, to be bullied by the legislative.
After all, what is it to you what other people do?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

For Christians, God gave out 10 laws. Ok, for Jews he gave 10 laws, but Jesus is quoted saying those laws are in effect and he specified many of them.
So, for Christians there are 10 God given laws, +1 that Jesus added. That's it.
Everything else, are man-made rules.

So, would an enlightened Christian or Jew, show me where -GOD- or Jesus said anything against same-sex relationships?

[h=4]Reference by Jesus[/h] See also: Expounding of the Law
In the Gospel of Matthew 19:16&#8211;19, Jesus repeated five of the Ten Commandments, followed by that commandment called "the second" (Mat.22:34&#8211;40) after the first and great commandment.

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

​

So, while there are laws in the Old Testament, those were man-made, not God issued.
There are 2 or 3 comments by Paul about the topic, but he never met Jesus in person, and the remainder of the NT is silent on the topic, and Jesus himself never is quoted in addressing the topic.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So people should not vote how they believe or feel? You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?

Believe, feel, vote how you like.

Just make sure you understand what you are voting on.

People voted FOR this law thinking it was Pro-Gay and they wanted to support equality. People voted against it thinking it was Pro-Gay.
They voted incorrectly based on their desired outcome.

Make sense?

 

[MSTCNC]

So people should not vote how they believe or feel? You say religion shouldnt play a part yet if soneone is religious should they not vote how they feel or believe?

No. Not at all what I'm saying...

If you're a religeous person, then of cousre it will affect you outlook on things... as does intellect...

What I'm saying is, it pretty assuming of somone to ram their beliefs down someone elses craw through via legislation such as this...

Don't like the lifestyle of the gay community? Fine, I'm sure that community of people can live with that fact just FINE! But, to say it's wrong for someone else, and their point of view... based on YOUR religeous beleifs? Well, it just seems myopic of the person passing judgement... (IMHO)

Do unto others and all that, yes?

How'd you like someone saying you couldn't belive in God anymore... that it was illegal...

That'd get people from the Christian sects up in arms, yes?

Judge not lest ye be judged

...

Honestly, we could go on and on with this...

In the end, this thread is expressing MY frustration with what I feel is a grave injustice enacted upon the people of NC... BY the people of NC...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

what I feel is a grave injustice enacted upon the people of NC... BY the people of NC...

I agree.

 

[Flying Crane]

You are free to not marry a person of the same gender.

however, in a nation that believes in a separation of church and state the bible should have no bearing on the laws.

Aside from the sex part, there are money matters involved.
And really, contrary to popular believe, marriage is an economic arrangement.
In the past it was restricted to man and woman because of the biological necessity to produce children (oh, and government had always had it's hand in that pie: from the olden days when permission had to be granted by the lord of the land, to minimal monetary requirements for the happy couple. In essence, no money - or job - no maritial bliss)
marriage is a worldy thing, as martin Luther had put it (and some say that only as answer to the reformation marriage was made into a sacrament by the Catholic church)

Also, a physical attack, that is about the last step. However the dislike of the 'lifestyle' is causing the subtle attacks on those individuals, to be bullied by the legislative.
After all, what is it to you what other people do?

I really dislike the "lifestyle" references, because it simply is not a lifestyle. That implies there is a choice involved and that is not true. Homosexual people are who they are because they were made that way, not because they made a choice to be that way. They are gay in the same way that straight people are straight, because that is who they are and they have no control over it.

Nobody should confuse coming out of the closet after years of suppression, with making a choice to be gay.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

 

[granfire]

I really dislike the "lifestyle" references, because it simply is not a lifestyle. That implies there is a choice involved and that is not true. Homosexual people are who they are because they were made that way, not because they made a choice to be that way. They are gay in the same way that straight people are straight, because that is who they are and they have no control over it.

Nobody should confuse coming out of the closet after years of suppression, with making a choice to be gay.

Aye.
Living on the farm is a lifestyle....

 

[decepticon]

I'll take a risk and voice another dissenting opinion. Am I missing something here? If the majority of voters in a particular area vote against something, why is that wrong? The minority is free to stay and try to educate or free to leave and go where their views are better tolerated or even accepted. There are 49 other states to which they can relocate.

I've read in this thread that religion shouldn't matter and yet our governmental organizations fall over backward not to offend one of the many non-Christian religions represented in our public schools, public buildings, public gatherings, etc. Why does it matter sometimes but not others?

I also take great offense at all the slurs here against rural residents. Cries that they should be denied the right to vote. I don't remember hearing any of that when urban/inner city voters were being encouraged to vote in droves about 3 years ago, regardless of their educational level.

Whether or not I agree with the results of the vote in NC, I am strongly in support of the local citizen voters' right to vote however they choose. If it all boiled down to a lack of clarity about the exact wording of the ballot, then that sounds to me like the pro-gay marriage groups did a poor job of spelling it out for voters. I have always hated the "vote no if you want something to continue and yes if you want it to stop" type of wording. That is confusing, but not exclusive to NC.

If the majority of local voters there were against allowing gay marriage, then it is their right as Americans to vote to continue the ban. Last time I checked, it was government by the people, not government by the people who think they know what is right for the local people.